> > > f x = x + x
> > > Is the "x" use to create a pattern in the definition and when f is
> > > called it's replaced by a value?
> >
> >Those equation-like definitions are syntactic sugar for lambda
> >abstractions. f could as well be defined as f = \x -> x + x.
>>Please elaborate
>>>First, the
>>f x =
>>part says that f is a function which takes a single parameter,
>called x. The other side of the = sign gives the function body: in
>this case, x + x. This is exactly the same thing that is expressed
>by the lambda expression
>>\x -> x + x
>>This expression defines a function that takes a single parameter
>called x, and returns the value of x + x. The only difference is
>that with the lambda expression, this function is not given a
>name. But you can easily give the function a name (just as you can
>give any Haskell expression a name) by writing
>>f = \x -> x + x
>>In general, writing
>>g x y z = blah blah
>>is just a shorthand for
>>g = \x -> \y -> \z -> blah blah.
>>That is, it simultaneously creates a function expression, and
>assigns it a name.
>>Does that help?
Yes and thanks for the reply.
When a function is declared in C the argument variable has an address
somewhere in the memory:
int f ( int x ) {
return x * x;
}
any value passed to f() is assigned to x. x is the identifier for a
real slot in the memory (the stack most likely) made available for f().
Is this also what happens in Haskell?
Thanks, Paul